Pages

Translate

Monday, May 15, 2006

GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming by Hardy Limeback PhD DDS

"In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation," writes Limeback.

Dr. Limeback was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards." Dr. Limeback a dentist, researcher and an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto.

The argument against fluoridation is strong when all the points listed below are taken together.

1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.

Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia (Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology. 32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).

Public health services will claim there is a dental decay crisis. With the national average in the U.S. of only two decayed teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable success has been achieved in other developed countries without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay in the U.S. often mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously not helping.

The families of these children with rampant dental decay need professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that fluoridation benefited poor people.

Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because they lose money treating these patients. Dentists support fluoridation programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental "crises."

Public health officials responsible for community programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control.

2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.

Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006).

We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).

3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.

All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134).

4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.

Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the seven-fold increase risk of bone cancer.

Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal disease. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients who retain too much fluoride.

Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.

Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. While some recent Chinese studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth in North America.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

“Ten year old, Gradon..., got some nasty news from his dentist and it wasn’t a cavity,” reports CBC-TV. “I saw this yellow stuff and thought it was my toothpaste and kept trying to wash it off; but it wouldn’t come off,” says Gradon.

Those patches are fluorosis a condition that shocks many parents because of the cause - too much fluoride. “It was even a bigger surprise to his pediatric dentist - he’s Gradon’s father,” said the Canadian broadcaster. (1)

“We don’t really know how much fluoride it takes to cause fluorosis; and it’s not something we really knew much about ten years ago,” said the Canadian dentist in 1998.

Things haven’t changed much since 1998. Many American dentists and pediatricians still routinely prescribe fluoride supplements to babies and toddlers believing they prevent tooth decay. Never FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approved (2), fluoride supplements do more harm than good(8.

Fluoride’s alleged beneficial effects are topical, not systemic as once believed. Scientists discovered old fluoride studies are flawed (3) and that swallowing fluoride discolors teeth but doesn’t reduce tooth decay.

This is why mainstream dental groups such as the Canadian Dental Association, the Western Australia Health Department's Dental Service and the German Scientific Dental Association stopped recommending routine fluoride supplementation. And, if dentists believe children with severe decay must be given a topical fluoride supplement,such as lozenges, dentists are urged to wait until the child is older than 7 years when fluoride will no longer discolor the permanent teeth.

Fluoride was mistakenly discovered as a decay-preventative in the early 1900’s when Americans drinking naturally calcium-fluoridated water supplies displayed cavity-free, discolored teeth. Fluoride stains teeth from the inside. So dentists assumed fluoride prevented cavities, also. But, they overlooked calcium, magnesium and other teeth building components in the water supplies.

Those early studies are dismissed as inaccurate. Still not ready to give up on fluoride, dentists claim fluoride must work topically. However, no well done studies exist comparing cavity rates between similar populations of fluoride users vs. fluoride non users.

Neither a nutrient nor essential to health, fluoride is simply used as a drug to treat tooth decay. Unlike vitamin and mineral supplements often discouraged in favor of a balanced diet, fluoride supplements are encouraged by the medical establishment even though slightly more than recommended leads to adverse effects and no American child is fluoride deficient.

Fluoride is so toxic that children have died from swallowing too much(4).

Knighted fluoride experts by the media and other physicians, dentists often are painfully ignorant about fluoride’s adverse effects and toxicity.

Dental researchers gobble up government grant money to study fluoride but fail to reveal their negative fluoride findings to the tax-paying public and, even more importantly, to the dentists who treat them.

In order to influence California legislators to vote for fluoridation, a dentist swallowed a whole vial of fluoride tablets in front of them and then said ‘Hey, guess what? I’m still alive.’”(5) A similar stunt by a child could have been lethal.

Warnings on the back of fluoridated toothpaste tubes and boxes are there because, if a small child swallowed the whole tube, he or she could die (4). Children died from swallowing too many fluoride pills. One child died after swallowing instead of expectorating his dentist’s fluoride treatment. The dentist didn’t think it was toxic. People have become sickened and died because water engineers injected too much fluoride into water supplies.

Over 65% of America is fluoridated and virtually all Americans consume fluoride in their foods, beverages and dental products. One would expect tooth decay would be obliterated by those fluoridated toothpastes, mouthrinses, supplements, dental treatments, varnishes and water supplies as predicted.

Instead tooth decay rates climb. And so do dental fluorosis rates, with more children displaying moderate and severe symptoms than ever before(6).

The only prediction of future tooth decay is present tooth decay. And the only sure thing linked to extensive tooth decay is poverty.

Prescribing fluoride supplements to toothless or cavity-free children is absolutely ludicrous. Prescribing fluoride to children with loads of cavities won't help. Fixing their diet will have better long term results with only beneficial side effects. Fluoride can't change the consequences of a poor diet.

"The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in nonfluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether," says Canada's leading fluoride authority, Hardy Limeback, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto and past president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. “Fluoride gets into every cell of the body and can especially damage the bones and teeth." says Limeback.

ME: So are you asking formula and baby foods also be fluoride labeled?

CDC: silence

ME: So, if ingested fluoride doesn’t reduce tooth decay and if saliva fluoride levels aren’t high enough to prevent tooth decay, what good is fluoridation?

CDC: “ drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold.”

ME: When I do the math this works out to 0.6 ppm to 6 ppm in non-fluoridated communities and 1.6 - 16 ppm in fluoridated communities. Isn’t that high enough to cause fluorosis since all fluorides get absorbed into the bloodstream via the mucous membranes of the mouth and some fluoridated dental products get swallowed inadvertently.

CDC: The concentration returns to previous levels within 1--2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization.

ME: Is this cost factored into the cost/benefit of water fluoridation?

CDC: “most persons would be classified as low risk (for cavities) at any given time.”

ME: There you go again changing the subject. So, if the dentist isn’t sure, he/she treats my child as a low risk cavity person.

CDC: “when classification is uncertain, treating a person as high risk is prudent until further information or experience allows a more accurate assessment. This assumption increases the immediate cost of caries prevention or treatment and might increase the risk for enamel fluorosis for children aged <6 years...”

ME: So you’d rather make more money and give my kid fluorosed teeth than give less fluoride which you say doesn’t work inside the teeth or outside a clean tooth. To tell you the truth I’m doubting the necessity of fluoride at all, doc. What else should I know?

CDC: “Adherence to the recommendations in this report regarding appropriate use of fluoride for children aged <6 years will reduce the prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis”

ME: Why, is there a problem?

CDC: “The U.S. Publc Health Service (PHS) developed recommendations in the 1940s and 1950s regarding fluoride concentrations in public water supplies. At that time, publichealth officials assumed that drinking water would be the major source of fluoride for most U.S. residents.”

ME: Assumed?

CDC: “...fluoride-containing products, including toothpaste (i.e., dentifrice), mouthrinse, dietary supplements, and professionally applied or prescribed gel, foam, or varnish. In addition, processed beverages, which constitute an increasing proportion of the diets of many U.S. residents and food can contain small amounts of fluoride, especially if they are processed with fluoridated water. Thus, U.S. residents have more sources of fluoride available now than 50 years ago.

ME: You forgot fluoride in medicines, inhaled and absorbed fluoride from ocean mist, fluoridated shower and bath water and cold mist humidifiers as well as fluoride air pollution from industry emissions, coal burning, electric plants, and even volcanoes. OK, so I know a little about fluoride.

CDC: “...The United States does not have comprehensive recommendations for caries prevention and control through various combinations of fluoride modalities. Adoption of such recommendations could...(reduce) the prevalence of enamel fluorosis...”

ME: What do I do in the meantime?

CDC: “...attention to fluoride intake among children aged <6 years to decrease the risk for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: I understand that dentists are taught to prescribe fluoride supplements for all children over 6 months who live in non-fluoridated or low fluoride communities.

CDC: “Fluoride supplements can be prescribed for children at high risk for dental caries and whose primary drinking water has a low fluoride concentration.”

ME: Oh so it’s only for children at high risk of cavities.

CDC: “For children aged <6 years, the dentist, physician, or other health-care provider should weigh the risk for caries without fluoride supplements, the caries prevention offered by supplements, and the potential for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: Why is that?

CDC: “A few studies have reported no association between supplement use by children aged <6 years and enamel fluorosis but most have reported a clear association.”

ME: So, no supplements for my 5 year old. But do supplements reduce tooth decay?

CDC: “The evidence for using fluoride supplements to mitigate dental caries is mixed.”

ME: Even this, you are not sure of?

CDC: “fluoride supplements also could increase the risk for enamel fluorosis at this age” (6 and under)…”

ME: What about all that science you said you had to support their use?

CDC: “Many studies of the effectiveness of fluoride supplements in preventing dental caries among children aged <6 years have been flawed in design and conduct.”

ME: Oh, so fluoride supplements are more likely to cause fluorosis than decrease tooth decay in the under six year old group. So now your supplement and fluoridation studies are flawed. I guess those anti-fluoridationists were right all along. What else?

CDC: “Consideration of the child's other sources of fluoride, especially drinking water, is essential in determining this balance. Parents and caregivers should be informed of both the benefit of protection against dental caries and the possibility of enamel fluorosis.”

ME: No dentist ever told me the risks of fluoride. So that’s a good one. What else.

CDC: “Parents and caregivers should consult a dentist or other health-care provider before introducing a child aged <2 years to fluoride toothpaste.”

ME: How about fluoride treatments at the dentist

CDC: “Whether fluoride varnish or gel would be most efficiently used in clinical programs targeting groups at high risk for dental caries or should be reserved for individual patients at high risk is unclear.”

ME: What about low risk people?

CDC: “Routine use of professionally applied fluoride gel or foam likely provides little benefit to persons not at high risk for dental caries, especially those who drink fluoridated water and brush daily with fluoride toothpaste.”

ME: Oy. What else?

CDC “Parents and caregivers should not provide additional fluoride to children aged <6 years without consulting a dentist or other health-care provider regarding the associated benefits and potential for enamel fluorosis.”

ME: Sounds reasonable to me; I just hope my dentist knows all this stuff. They say many doctors get their medical information from the media. The media told us 100 million Americans are deprived of fluoride but that’s not what you are telling me.

ME: What’s up with these school fluoridation programs?

CDC: “ a fluoride concentration of 4.5 times the optimal concentration … to compensate for the more limited consumption of fluoridated water. At the peak of this practice in the early 1980s, a total of 13 states had initiated school water fluoridation in 470 schools serving 170,000 children

ME: How many now?

CDC: “... the current extent of this practice is not known.

ME: I think that’s something you should know.

ME: What about fluoride mouthrinses.

CDC: “The National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program (NPDDP), a large project conducted in 10 U.S. cities during 1976-1981 to compare the cost and effective-ness of combinations of caries-prevention procedures, reported that fluoride mouthrinse had little effect among schoolchildren, either among first-grade students with high and low caries experience or among all second- and fifth-grade students”

ME: Why am I not surprised. What about school fluoride mouthrinse programs?

CDC: Throughout the 1980s, approximately 3 million children in the United States participated in school-based fluoride mouthrinsing programs

ME: What about now?

CDC: “The current extent of such programs is not known.”

ME: Again, you don’t know? What do you know.

CDC: “Use of fluoride supplements by pregnant women does not benefit their offspring”

ME: You crafty little devils conveniently left unmentioned that the fluorides used to fluoridate drinking water are mostly silicofluorides, waste products of the fertilizer industry, contaminated with arsenic, lead, and more, which have never been safety tested in humans or animals according to the EPA. (See http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rmasters/letter.jpg)

THE END

The actual CDC from which this is dervied can be found here:http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Before Crest, Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) experimental Teel toothpaste with sodium fluoride, actually caused cavities in 1940’s tests. (1) Teel was scrapped in favor of Crest, with stannous fluoride. In 1955, Crest received the American Dental Association’s (ADA) seal of approval generating loads of money for P&G. Since then, even more evidence shows fluoride could cause instead of cure tooth decay.

In February of 1972 the ADA reported that, in fluoridated cities, dentists reaped a net profit 17% higher than in nonfluoridated cities.

In fact, in their zeal to promote fluoridation as their gift to the poor, and maybe help sell more Crest, someone forgot to check tooth decay statistics against fluoridation rates. Organized dentistry actually awarded the most toothless and cavity-prone states and cities in the name of water fluoridation in 2004. (1a)

The ongoing Iowa Fluoride Study reports in March 2006 that children in fluoridated communities have more fluorosis, but no less tooth decay, than children who live in sub-optimally fluoridated areas.(9)

A 1992 University of Arizona study found that "the more fluoride a child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth."

After 50 years of water fluoridation, Newburgh, New York, children have more cavities than kids from never-fluoridated Kingston, New York.(2)

After Kentucky required fluoride chemicals be dispensed into drinking water to reduce cavities, tooth decay rates almost doubled in pre-school children.(3)

A majority of Asian-American children living in areas with fluoridated water suffer with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities, according to a California study.(4)

In fact, many studies show that when fluoridation ceases, cavity rates go down.(5)

African children from Uganda, enjoy fewer cavities than American children even though fluoridated toothpaste and toothbrushes are virtually unknown to them. However, Ugandan children who drink high fluoride water have more tooth decay than their equals in low fluoride districts.(6)

Based on thirty years of study on .4 million children, Teotia and Teotia report "Our findings indicate that dental caries is caused by high fluoride and low dietary calcium intakes, separately and through their interactions." (6a)

Ireland, 73% fluoridated since the 1960’s, has a higher tooth decay rate than five other European countries that don’t add fluoride chemicals into the water, according to the June 30, 2001, Irish Independent.

Consistent with previous findings, Wondwossen and colleagues found a positive association between water fluoride levels and cavities. (7)

Tooth decay declined substantially in prevalence and severity when Hong Kong children consumed less fluoride, indicative of a world-wide scientific trend revealing, with fluoride, less is best; none is better.(7a)

Dentists once predicted that fluoridation would put them out of business. Instead, after 60 years of water fluoridation and 50 years of fluoridated toothpaste, dentists make much more money than physicians while working less hours, less days and with less responsibility. (7b)

Saturday, January 14, 2006

New York - March 1956 - Bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation occur more often in children dosed with sodium fluoride-laced drinking water, according to an unprecedented human cavity-prevention experiment conducted upon the population of Newburgh, New York, reported in the March 1956 Journal of the American Dental Association. This is the first research into ingested fluoride's effects to the body and not just the teeth.

Brown and yellow discolored, but decay resistant, teeth are prevalent in populations drinking and irrigating their crops with naturally calcium-fluoridated water. Public health officials wondered if sodium fluoride injected in small doses into “fluoride-deficient” water supplies, then ingested by children and incorporated into their developing teeth, would prevent cavities without endangering their health or mottling their teeth, now called dental fluorosis.

So, ten years ago Newburgh’s faucets began spouting 1.2 parts per million (ppm) sodium fluoride. Nearby Kingston, New York, the control city for comparison purposes, was left fluoride-free. Kingston and Newburgh are thirty-five miles apart on the Hudson River and have 1940 populations of 31,956 and 28,817, respectively. In Newburgh, 500 children were examined after ten years and 405 in Kingston. Adults were never tested.

Due to political pressure, the Newburgh/Kingston study was declared a success five years ago before these ill health effects were found. As a result, many U.S. cities started fluoridation believing it is safe and effective.

Sodium fluoride ingestion is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is on the market as a rat poison. Once any drug is on the market for any reason, doctors are allowed to prescribe it for other diseases. Hence, many physicians and dentists are “off-labeling” sodium fluoride as a cavity preventive for children who don’t drink fluoridated water supplies, of course, in much smaller doses than needed to kill rats.

Newburgh's children were given complete physicals and x-rays, over the course of the study, from birth to age nine in the first year and up to age eighteen in the final year. “(R)outine laboratory studies were omitted in the control group during most of the study, they were included in the final examination,” according to Schlesinger and colleagues, in “Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.”

The researchers also report:

“The average age at the menarche was 12 years among the girls studied in Newburgh and 12 years 5 months among the girls in Kingston.”

Hemoglobin (iron-containing part of a red blood cell): “a few more children in the range below 12.9 grams per hundred milliliters in Newburgh”

“…a slightly higher proportion of children in Newburgh were found to have a total erythrocyte (red blood cell) count below 4,400,000 per milliliter”

Knee X-rays of Newburgh children reveals more cortical bone defects, and irregular mineralization of the thigh bone.

Only twenty-five Newburgh children had eye and ear exams. Two have apparent hearing loss. Eight have abnormal vision. Even though researchers discovered more adult cataracts in surveys conducted before 1944 in communities with naturally high water fluoride concentrations (1)Newburg and Kingston adults were never checked for this defect.

Only two groups of twelve-year-old boys were tested for fluoride’s toxic kidney effects.

--------------------------------------------------

The above is a report of the 1956 Newburgh/Kingston fluoridation study as it should have been reported.

It’s the reference that’s still used today to substantiate claims that fluoridation is safe for everyone. No other comprehensive health study of water fluoridation has ever been conducted to the best of my knowledge.

The 2004 book "The Fluoride Deception," by Christopher Bryson, reveals that in addition to NYS Dep't of Health examinations “the University of Rochester conducted its own studies, measuring how much fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Rochester scientists,” writes Bryson. Three times as much fluoride was found in the placentas and blood samples gathered from Newburgh as from non-fluoridated Rochester, reports Bryson.

Following back the scientific references in all current fluoridation safety literature will invariably lead back to the Newburgh/Kingston study which actually failed to prove fluoridation is safe for all who drink it.

After sixty years of fluoridation fed to over 2/3 of Americans, the U.S. Surgeon General reports, tooth decay is a silent epidemic.

However, dental fluorosis is occuring across the land instead of just in isolated communities, affecting upwards of 42% of American schoolchildren, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Reference:(1) Fluoridation researcher, Peter Meiers, has more information about the Newburgh/Kingston study on his website:

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Research shows that fluoride (the decay-preventative added to water and dental products) can make people sick; but improved diet and complete fluoride withdrawal can relieve symptoms.(a)

Fluoride’s harmful health effects, except to teeth, are rarely studied in the U.S. and, in fact, are often discouraged(b).

In areas of India, where food and water are naturally fluoride-abundant, severe fluoride toxicity is common and manifests as debilitating and disfiguring diseases(d). Well-known is that fluoride excess irreversibly cripples bones and crumbles teeth (skeletal and dental fluorosis, respectively).

Lesser-known is that early fluorosis warning signs, or soft tissue toxicity, are reversible with a diet adequate in calcium, vitamins C, E, other antioxidants and withdrawal of all fluoride sources (the intervention), report researchers Madhu Bhatnager and Professor (Dr.) A.K. Susheela, the CEO and Director of India’s Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation.

“It is now an established fact that fluoride ingestion over a period of time can affect the structure and function of cells, tissues, organs and systems resulting in a variety of clinical manifestations," writes Dr. Susheela who researches fluoride extensively . The following symptoms can occur even from fluoride consumption at the low level added to most US water supplies.

1) aches and pain in the joints, i.e. neck, back, hip, shoulder and knee without visible signs of fluid accumulation

2) non-ulcer dyspepsia such as nausea, vomiting, pain in the stomach, bloated feeling or gas formation in the stomach, constipation followed by diarrhea

3) polyuria (frequent urination) and polydipsia (excessive thirst)

4) muscle weakness, fatigue, anemia with low hemoglobin level

5) complaints of repeated abortions/still birth

6) complaints of male infertility with abnormality in sperm morphology, oligospermia (spermatozoa deficiency in the semen), azoospermia (spermatozoa absence in the semen) and low testosterone levels.”

Susheela and Bhatnager recommend physicians consider fluoride toxicity for the above-listed patient complaints and/or any loss of shine or discoloration in the patient’s front row of teeth, which may be due to dental fluorosis.

“Pediatricians need to be educated about fluorosis. Perhaps water fluoridation and indiscriminate promotion of fluoridated dental products in the name of prevention of dental caries (cavities) need to be reviewed,” writes Susheela and Bhatnager

U.S. studies show American children are fluoride saturated, ruining their teeth with dental fluorosis; yet cavity rates are rising (1-8). These children should be studied for fluoride’s other adverse health effects and correlated to essential nutrient consumption and cavities.

Also never studied, incredibly, are the most widely-used artificial fluoride chemicals Americans drink daily - silicofluorides (j), derived from fertilizers, purposely added to water supplies, at about 1 milligram fluoride per quart of water, in an attempt to reduce tooth decay. Recent published studies indicate that children who live in silico-fluoridated communities have higher blood lead levels than children who live in sodium fluoridated or non-fluoridated communities (k).

Ironically, higher blood lead levels are also linked to higher rates of tooth decay (L) and are associated with higher rates of diseases and behavioral problems (including hyperactivity, substance abuse, and violent crime).

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential to health. Fluoride deficiency does not lead to tooth decay. Poor diet causes cavities and fluoride can’t fix a poor diet.

Fluoride has been linked to many other health problems such as thyroid dysfunction, bone fractures, lowered IQ, allergic and intolerant effects and more.

(i) March 1999 Journal of the American Dental Association “Fluorosis of the primary dentition: what does it mean for permanent teeth?” by Warren JJ, Kanellis MJ, Levy SM http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10085657&dopt=Abstract

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Fluoridation was adopted more by politicking than by science according to Edward Groth III, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, with Consumers Union, publishers of the popular Consumers Reports magazine.

In a presentation made at the February 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Groth reported that, with three experimental fluoridation trials incomplete, enthusiastic fluoridation proponents successfully lobbied and persuaded the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) to endorse fluoridation in 1950 who, then with a few state dental officials, began vigorously promoting fluoridation with little, if any, scientific support.

According to Groth, whose 1973 Stanford University doctoral dissertation partially evaluated the use of scientific information in fluoridation policy-making. “There were no significant studies examining the long-term health of people in communities with naturally fluoridated water. .. (However,) exposure via drinking water, at levels not much higher than what was proposed for fluoridation, had been associated in numerous published studies, beginning around 1940, with serious adverse skeletal and neuromuscular effects, in India and other countries. Opposition to fluoridation initially came from scientists concerned about the lack of good evidence on possible health risks,” writes Groth

In order to get fluoridation passed, proponents often belittled opponents and used slick public relations schemes, while refusing to debate the issue, to get fluoridation accepted, reports Groth. Something they still do today

Said Groth, “Those who did openly oppose fluoridation were often subject of personal attack and professional reprisals. For decades, mainstream scientific journals would reject for publication any paper that did not articulate a strictly pro-fluoridation position on risk and benefit questions.”

“I myself had three manuscripts based on my doctoral dissertation rejected by U.S. public health journals in the 1970s,” says Groth. “My reviews of the evidence on risks and benefits of fluoridation were sent to anonymous pro-fluoridation referees, who found them “biased.” One editor advised that he wished to do nothing that might offer anti-fluoridationists any political leverage...(However,) I was politically outside the fray; my interest was exploring the interplay between political controversy and interpretations of scientific data. My papers were still rejected by several leading American journals in the 1970s, I believe because of a pervasive bias in favor of defending and promoting fluoridation,” writes Groth.

Groth reports of the early days of fluoridation, “ Leading PHS dental researchers lobbied every leading scientific organization, to gain endorsements of fluoridation. They cast fluoridation as a product of scientific progress under siege from anti-scientific forces, and rallied the scientific community in political support of the measure. They carried out a few studies looking for possible adverse effects of fluoridation; the studies were poorly designed and inconclusive, by today’s standards, but they found no convincing evidence of harm. The PHS declared the issues closed, the debate over. The studies were roundly criticized as inadequate and biased by leading opponents of the day but fluoridation advocates rapidly took the stance that there was no longer any scientific doubt that fluoridation was safe and effective. Their political strategy was simply to steamroll the opposition, to insist that opponents had no basis for any valid objections. They focused on political campaigning, not on research; in fact, research all but halted, as it was politically inexpedient for the PHS to be studying questions they had already declared adequately answered.”

Times haven’t changed much from the early days of fluoridation as Groth reports it. Dentists still denigrate the opposition, fund huge billboards, radio and TV spots, newspaper ads, and brochures to influence Americans to vote for fluoridation. Organized dentistry often uses their clout to censor fluoridation opponent information from reaching the media, even when it is accurate, while refusing to publicly debate the issue knowing the media likes a controversy and mostly ignores opponents otherwise.

At the same time, some dentists admit the benefits vs. the risks of fluoridation is a legitimate scientific controversy. Fluoridation may be immoral and outdated argues David Locker, BDS, PhD, professor and director of the Community Dental Health Services Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto in the November 2001, Journal of the Canadian Dental Association (http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-67/issue-10/eng/578.html ).

And in a new devious twist, the American Dental Association, acting like teenage hackers, bought the domain name “www.fluoridealert.com” and “www.fluoridealert.net” to deceive web surfers away from fluoridation opponents’ website, http://www.fluoridealert.org , the website of the Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition of organizations opposed to fluoridation. Instead, with a slip of a “dot com,” unsuspecting web surfers are tricked to the American Dental Association’s pro-fluoridation information.

Why would dentists do such a thing? Dentistry was a maligned profession before fluoridation gave it respectability. And fluoridation birthed the National Institutes of Dental Research. Fluoridation gives organized dentistry political power as well as millions of federal tax dollars to study fluoride’s effects in humans. Many dentists are stuck in their old-time beliefs and haven’t actually read the literature themselves. Those that do often switch sides.

“Fluoridation campaigns provide a unique opportunity for dentistry to help reduce the incidence of dental disease while establishing political viability...,” according to the Journal of the American Dental Association, “Fluoridation Election Victory: A Case Study for Dentistry in Effective Political Action,” April 1981.

Also, there’s an interesting “marriage” between organized dentistry and fluoride manufacturers who fund dental journals, dental schools, research, awards, symposiums and dental meetings, buy equipment, and do much more for dentists and their organizations.

Dentists censor negative fluoride information whenever they are able to. They discourage newspapers from using fluoridation opponent letters (See http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/determinations/det_24.html ), encourage internet news services to shut-off fluoridation opponents information (See Fluoridation and Censorship:
http://www.chirojournal.com/newsletter.php?nl=136896&ar=3128 ) while ignoring the misinformation disseminated by their own profession about fluoride and fluoridation on the internet and elsewhere.

A 1999 dental textbook, “Dentist, Dental Practice, and the Community,” by prominent researchers and dental university professors, Burt and Eklund, reports that Groth’s assessment is correct even today - that fluoridation is based more on unproved theories than scientific evidence.

END

Groth’s entire presentation can be found here: http://www.consumersunion.org/food/debate/bio1.htm
page one is at http://www.consumersunion.org/food/debate/bio.htm